Rather Expose Them Christian News Blog

New Mexico Gov Who Banned Firearms in Albuquerque Says Her Oath Is Not ‘Absolute’~NRA Condemns Dem Governor For Temporarily Suspending Open And Concealed Carry

New Mexico Gov Who Banned Firearms in Albuquerque Says Her Oath Is Not 'Absolute'
AP Photo/Morgan Lee
Republicans in New Mexico are calling for her impeachment. Elon Musk called her executive order banning firearms from being carried in public for 30 days “next-level illegal”.

But New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham is defending her order, claiming it was necessary to protect “public health,” and besides, her oath to uphold the Constitution was not “absolute.”

“No constitutional right, in my view, including my oath, is intended to be absolute,” she retorted after being asked whether her order violated her oath of office to “uphold the Constitution.”

It’s true there are exceptions to most of our Constitutional rights. We can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater, for example. There’s also the “fighting words doctrine” that makes incitement to violence illegal.

But anyone who claims there are exceptions to their oath needs to be impeached. The words “oath” and “absolute” pretty much go together. And this cretin of a governor is looking to separate them because she’s gotten herself in a heap of trouble.

Exclusively for our VIPs: Dems Hate the Constitution: New Mexico Gov. Bans Gun Carry in Albuquerque

The ban on carrying firearms in public grew out of recent shootings where children were caught in the crossfire. Our hearts bleed for the kids, but just how in the name of all that is good and holy will banning the concealed or open-carrying of guns prevent kids from getting killed?

New York Times:

At a news conference on Friday, [Grisham] said that shootings have amounted to an epidemic and that the suspension allowed for a “cooling-off period” for the state to figure out the best way to address gun violence and public safety. She said she expected the suspension to be challenged in court and could not guarantee it would stand.

“I welcome the debate and the fight about making New Mexicans safer,” she said.

Gun violence is sort of like a disease — “amounted to an epidemic” — so let’s toss the Constitution into the trash. After all, isn’t that what the government did during the pandemic?

The National Association for Gun Rights has already filed suit to block the executive order. Legal experts believe the suit is a slam dunk. But Lujan-Grisham is undeterred. She believes 1+1=3.

“I have emergency powers,” she said. “Gun violence is an epidemic. Therefore, it’s an emergency.”

Huh? This woman gives non-sequiturs a bad name.

Patrick Carter, co-director for the University of Michigan’s Institute for Firearm Injury Prevention, said there was evidence that fewer guns lead to less violence in an area. However, he said, there was not enough data or research to determine whether or not this ban would have an effect on preventing firearm injuries, which he said required “a comprehensive approach that blends policy with other types of interventions.”

Let’s just say it: New Mexico’s governor panicked.

Robert Leider, an assistant professor of law at George Mason University, said bans like this have been issued “when you have public disorders or other states of emergency, but most states of emergency usually involve something more acute.” He expressed skepticism that the ban would be upheld in court. “I’m not aware of any precedent for this just for general criminal wrongdoing,” he said.

The effort to tie public health to an inability to enforce gun laws is one of the left’s most cynical end runs around the Constitution. In this instance, the exercise is likely to be shot down in record time.

____________________________________________________________

NRA Condemns Dem Governor For Temporarily Suspending Open And Concealed Carry

WASHINGTON, DC – FEBRUARY 16: U.S. Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-NM) (C) speaks during a news conference. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

OAN’s Brooke Mallory
4:35 PM – Sunday, September 10, 2023

SEE: https://www.oann.com/newsroom/nra-condemns-dem-governor-for-temporarily-suspending-open-and-concealed-carry/;

Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

New Mexico’s Democrat governor, Michelle Lujan Grisham, came under fire from the National Rifle Association (NRA) for temporarily restricting open and concealed carry across Albuquerque and neighboring Bernalillo County due to an emergency public health order.

“In a shocking move, Governor Lujan Grisham is suspending Second Amendment rights by administrative fiat, ignoring the U.S. Constitution and the New Mexico Constitution,” NRA-ILA Executive Director Randy Kozuch told the press.

The Democrat governor, according to the NRA head, should eliminate “soft-on-crime policies.” According to police statistics, 76 homicide victims have been reported in Albuquerque so far this year, which is fewer than the 93 victims reported during the same period last year.

“Instead of undermining the fundamental rights of law-abiding New Mexicans, she should address the soft-on-criminal policies which truly endanger its citizens,” Kozuch said.

In an executive order made public on Friday, Lujan Grisham temporarily banned the open and concealed carry regulations in Bernalillo County for at least 30 days. The shootings of a 13-year-old girl in July, a 5-year-old girl in August, and an 11-year-old boy this month served as the impetus for the statement.

“As I said yesterday, the time for standard measures has passed,” the governor said, according to her office’s press release on the order. “And when New Mexicans are afraid to be in crowds, to take their kids to school, to leave a baseball game – when their very right to exist is threatened by the prospect of violence at every turn – something is very wrong.”

On Friday, the governor held a press conference where she boldly said that no constitutional right is “absolute.”

“No constitutional right, in my view, including my oath, is intended to be absolute,” Lujan Grisham said after a reporter asked whether it’s “unconstitutional” to force Americans not to exercise their right to bear arms.

“There are restrictions on free speech. There are restrictions on my freedoms. In this emergency, this 11-year-old, and all these parents who have lost all these children, they deserve my attention to have the debate about whether or not, in an emergency, we can create a safer environment. Because what about their constitutional rights?” she said.

The reporter continued by inquiring of the Democrat governor whether she thought that criminal offenders with access to black market weapons would obey her directives on the 30-day suspension.

“Uh, no,” she responded. After that question, she reportedly went into a tangent about the importance of reporting crimes to law enforcement.

The National Association for Gun Rights and a local, unnamed resident have already launched a lawsuit against Grisham for “violating their Second Amendment rights.”

“Gov. Luhan Grisham is throwing up a middle finger to the Constitution and the Supreme Court,” Dudley Brown said. Dudley is the president of the National Association for Gun Rights.

The USCCA’s recently established 501(c)(4) group, the U.S. Concealed Carry Association for Saving Lives Action Fund, also denounced the order “in the strongest possible terms.”

“Not only does Governor Grisham lack the constitutional authority to implement such an unprecedented assault on the Second Amendment rights of New Mexico citizens, but it strikes at the very heart of what responsible gun owners have been saying for years – criminals do not follow the law, and this order only serves to punish law-abiding gun owners who protect their community,” said Katie Pointer Baney, chairman of the board and executive director of the USCCA-FSL Action Fund.

On X, formerly known as Twitter, the NRA emphasized that the New Mexico Bill of Rights guarantees the right to keep and carry guns for “security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.”

A statute permitting people to file a $2 million lawsuit if their constitutional rights are infringed was enacted by the governor in 2021.

“Under the New Mexico Civil Rights Act, signed into law by @GovMLG, a person whose rights under the Bill of Rights are violated may sue to recover for damages and obtain injunctive relief. Damages may be awarded up to $2 million per person whose rights were violated,” the NRA said. 

“The NRA remains committed to defending the rights of every American and sounding the alarm on such dangerous and unconstitutional proposals that prevent the law-abiding from defending themselves and their families from violent criminals who have overtaken this state under her watch,” Kozuch added.

Stay informed! Receive breaking news blasts directly to your inbox for free. Subscribe here. https://www.oann.com/alerts

Kristi Noem gives speech, Signs Executive Order To Protect Gun Rights At NRA Convention~Donald Trump addresses NRA meeting in Indianapolis; recommends arming teachers

At today's NRA Convention, Gov. Kristi Noem (R-SD) signed an executive order blocking state agencies from doing business with anti-gun large banks.

Trump calls for arming teachers at NRA convention

Donald Trump addresses NRA meeting in Indianapolis

RED ALERT: Biden regime makes boldest move in history of America to ban, register firearms using federal bureaucracy

Image: RED ALERT: Biden regime makes boldest move in history of America to ban, register firearms using federal bureaucracy

BY J.D. HEYES

SEE: https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-06-14-biden-regime-aims-to-ban-register-firearrms.html;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

(Natural News) When Democratic presidential contenders like Beto O’Rourke say they are going after our guns, they mean it. When Democratic presidential contenders say they are pro-Second Amendment and pro-Constitution, they are lying.

Both of these facts have been proven anew thanks to a heinous new rule introduced this week by the Biden regime.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives believes it has the authority to confiscate, ban and register an entire class of firearms — tens of millions of them, in fact — without ever consulting Congress.

The rule seeks to ‘regulate’ the use of (ban) so-called “Stabilizing Braces” — attachments to sporting pistols like those chambered for the AR-15 round to make them easier (and safer) to fire by essentially turning them into rifles.

So why that suddenly makes a difference to these gun-grabbing sons 0f you-know-whats is beyond us, given that actual AK and AR-style rifles will (for now) not be affected.

According to a fact sheet about the rule from SB Tactical, the rule, called, “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces,'” is the second attempt by the agency to regulate the devices, the first rule having been withdrawn in December 2020 ahead of Biden’s expected ascendency into the Oval Office, which happened only because Democrats stole Donald Trump’s reelection victory.

“The [Notice of Proposed Rule Making] proposes amending the definition of the term ‘rifle,’ as contained in 27 CFR §§ 478.11 and 479.11, to ‘clarify that the term “rifle” includes any weapon with a rifled barrel and equipped with an attached ‘stabilizing brace’ that has objective design features and characteristics that indicate that the firearm is designed to be fired from the shoulder, as indicated on ATF Worksheet 4999,” the fact sheet begins.

“ATF explains that the purpose of the amendments would be to target attachments to pistols that the agency contends are designed to evade restrictions imposed by the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act,” which limits the size of shotguns and rifles, the fact sheet continues.

“While ATF acknowledges that some stabilizing braces are intended to assist those with disabilities or limited strength to fire pistols, ATF argues that the intent of many such braces is effectively to convert pistols into unregulated short-barreled rifles (SBRs),” says the fact sheet — a contention that makes no sense given that a) any firearm is ‘regulated’ in that every buyer must be cleared to purchase one; and b) making a short-barreled rifle into a rifle makes it (anyone?) a rifle.

So what’s the issue? Well, the issue is the Biden regime sees stabilizing braces as a way to get the camel’s nose under the tent of broader regulation and eventually registration and banning of all “assault weapon” types of rifles, and against the people’s will. Always remember, Democrats will never be ‘finished’ taking away guns until they can take away all of them, the Second Amendment be damned.

“ATF proposes applying a point system…to determine whether a particular stabilizing brace would convert an otherwise unregulated pistol into an SBR,” the summary continued. But regardless, “ATF says it reserves the right to classify a firearm as an SBR, even if it satisfies the point system on the Worksheet 4999.”

So, this is a ‘heads I win, tails you lose’ scenario the ATF is establishing for these SBRs, of which there are an estimated 20-40 million in circulation that have been legally purchased.

“This proposed rule would be the largest Executive Branch firearms ban/registration scheme in American history— forcing the registration or destruction of millions of privately-owned firearms, and the loss of thousands of good-paying jobs from hundreds of companies,” SB Tactical’s fact sheet continues. “Through the creation of an arbitrary points system (ATF Worksheet 4999), the proposed rule would ensure that 99% of the firearms already in circulation are suddenly unlawfully possessed.”

This is a naked gun grab by the regime. If you want to sound off on this unconstitutional BS — and you should — click here and let the ATF know you disapprove if this.

Sources include:

SBTactical.com (.pdf file)

SecondAmendment.news

 

The NRA Opposes David Chipman for ATF Director~Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert: Gun Control is a way to “enslave & control the people”

THE GESTAPO "CONFISCATOR-IN-CHIEF" TAKES CHARGE; WILL DETERMINE IF YOU ARE PSYCHOLOGICALLY QUALIFIED TO OWN & USE A FIREARM!

David Chipman

Biden nominates David Chipman for Director of ATF

Today, the president nominated former ATF agent and staunch anti-gun advocate David Chipman for the position of director of the ATF. Chipman's resume includes stints working for anti-gun groups Everytown for Gun Safety, and currently the Giffords gun control group. During his time as an ATF agent, he was also involved in the Waco massacre as the case agent, which you'll remember as the time the government burned down a building full of little kids. It's difficult for me to remain objective about this, since this nomination would place someone at the reigns of the agency responsible for regulating the firearms industry and gun ownership who is completely opposed to private ownership of guns.

David Chipman: The WORST Possible Choice To Lead The ATF

David Chipman is a gun-control extremist. IMG NRA-ILA

BY NRAHQ

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/04/the-nra-opposes-david-chipman-for-atf-director;

AND: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/04/heres-why-david-chipman-is-a-terrible-choice-for-atf-director

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- During a press conference on Thursday, President Biden announced that he would once again be targeting law-abiding gun owners by ordering ATF to develop two new restrictive regulations. Aiming to accessorize the Department of Justice’s anti-gun leadership team, Biden announced his nomination of gun control lobbyist David Chipman for Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

It’s hard to imagine choosing a nominee who is more hostile to the rights of American gun owners than Chipman.

Read more: https://www.nraila.org/articles/20210409/nra-opposes-david-chipman-for-atf-director#ixzz6rpMASNdT
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

Chipman is a Gun Control Extremist

David Chipman’s current employer, Giffords, co-founded by the United States Senator Mark Kelly, filed a brief in the landmark Second Amendment case, District of Columbia v. Heller. The brief argued that “The Second Amendment Does Not Limit the Options Available to Cities to Address the Problem of Gun Violence.” Notably, Giffords argued that the District’s complete ban on the possession of handguns by law-abiding Americans was constitutional. Such an interpretation would have completely eviscerated the Second Amendment.

This extremist view put Giffords sharply out of touch with the American people. Nearly, three-quarters of Americans at the time thought the Second Amendment “guaranteed an individual right to own gun.” For those who might think that Giffords has moved on from such extreme views, their law center’s website still proudly notes that they filed the brief arguing “that the right to possess a firearm is not based on an individual right of self-defense, but rather related to service in a militia based on the prefatory language in the Amendment.”

Chipman Wants to Target America’s Rifle

In October 2018, Chipman argued in favor of subjecting all AR-15s and potentially all semi-automatic rifles to regulation under the National Firearms Act. Beyond the problems of subjecting the most popular rifle in America to punitive taxation and registration, such a move would likely lead to a decade-long backlog in NFA registrations, effectively banning America’s rifle, firearm suppressors, and other firearms currently subject to NFA regulation.

ATF operates on a “normal” backlog of 9-12 months for NFA applications. Even with this backlog and despite the registry being nearly 90 years old, as of 2020 there were only 6.6 million firearms in the registry. And, in recent years ATF has had the capacity to process only about 350,000 NFA forms per year. Even using the most conservative estimate for the number of AR-15s in America, with ATF’s current forms processing capacity, the agency would clear the backlog in NFA forms sometime around 2070. And, that’s only if the agency didn’t process a single NFA form for a suppressor, short-barreled rifle, or other NFA firearm.

As an agent with ATF for over two decades, Chipman is familiar with the agency’s NFA form processing capacity. He likely sees such a delay as a feature rather than a defect.

Chipman reiterated his wish to subject existing AR-15s to the NFA in a Reddit “Ask Me Anything” last year, but he further explained his position on future sales: “The biggest challenge we have is sheer numbers. It has been estimated that there are around 15 million assault rifles currently in circulation. I believe we should ban the future production and sale to civilians and afford current owners of these firearms the ability to license these particular guns with ATF under the National Firearms Act.”

Chipman Has Repeatedly Lied to Further his Gun Ban Agenda

Regular readers of NRA-ILA alerts are likely familiar with Chipman’s lies.

In 2019, we explained how Chipman was trying to mislead the public regarding firearms suppressors. He claimed that “The gun does not sound gun-like. It takes the edge out of the tone . . . This is how I would describe it: It makes a gun sort of sound like a nail gun.” As we said at the time, “The 30-35 dBA difference between a nail gun and a suppressed pistol will be perceived as at least eight times louder to the human ear.”

And, this wasn’t even the first time he lied about firearm suppressors. In 2017, Chipman claimed, “Anyone who has worked in law enforcement for as long as I have will tell you that silencers were not designed to protect hearing, they were designed to make it difficult for people to identify the sound of gunfire and locate active shooters.” Again, at the time, we set the record straight by pointing out that he was simply flat wrong regarding the design intent of firearm suppressors. “Unfortunately for Mr. Chipman, Hiram Percy Maxim, the designer of the firearm suppressor, made his design intent perfectly clear.  Maxim wrote “The Maxim Silencer was developed to meet my personal desire to enjoy target practice without creating a disturbance . . . I have always loved to shoot, but I never thoroughly enjoyed it when I knew that the noise was annoying other people. It occurred to me one day that there was no need for the noise. Why not do away with it and shoot quietly?” At the time, Chipman’s employer also received three “Pinocchios” from the Washington Post for another misleading claim about firearm suppressors.

In the same Reddit “Ask Me Anything” discussed above, Chipman made the absurd claim that “At Waco, cult members used 2 .50 caliber Barretts to shoot down two Texas Air National Guard helicopters. Point, it is true we are fortunate they are not used in crime more often. The victims of drug lords in Mexico are not so lucky. America plays a role in fueling the violence south of the border.” Needless to say, no helicopters were “shot down” “at Waco.”

In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee in 2019, Chipman claimed that the American gun market was “flooded” with “foreign-made ARs.” Anyone even remotely familiar with the American gun market knows that this claim is false. Not only are nearly all AR-15s made in America, but continued strong demand for ARs seems to also refute his notion that the market was “flooded.”

It is clear that, if confirmed, Chipman would use every tool at his disposal to attack the rights of law-abiding American gun owners.

Chipman’s views on the Second Amendment and his work as a gun prohibitionist should disqualify him from serving as the Director of the ATF.


About NRA-ILA:

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)

_______________________________________________________

Rep. Lauren Boebert: Gun Control is a way to 'Enslave and Control the People' 

BY RENEE NAL

SEE: https://rairfoundation.com/rep-lauren-boebert-gun-control-is-a-way-to-enslave-and-control-the-people/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

“Democrats & their allies seek to enslave and control the people of the United States and every aspect of their lives.”

Fearless Second Amendment defender and Colorado Representative Lauren Boebert responded to installed puppet Joe Biden’s ridiculous gun control executive actions with a truth bomb on Twitter.

Biden dutifully obeyed the “impatient activists” pushing to disarm Americans with his series of executive actions designed to degrade and dismantle the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which states that the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.” The rights outlined in the Constitution are meaningless unless Americans understand their rights and fight for them.

During his embarrassing, error-ridden speech, Biden announced David Chipman as his pick to run the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) (which Biden referred to as the “AFT” twice). Chipman is a gun control activist who notoriously lied about events that occurred in in Waco in 1993, claiming that members of the Branch Davidian sect “shot down two helicopters during a standoff with federal agents”, a blatant lie.

From the History Channel:

“Though initially reluctant, Attorney General Janet Reno ended up approving a plan to fire CS gas (a form of tear gas) into the Mount Carmel compound to try and force out the Davidians. Just after 6 a.m. on April 19, 1993, FBI agents used two specially equipped tanks to penetrate the compound and deposit some 400 containers of gas inside.

Soon after the attack ended, around 12 pm, several fires simultaneously broke out around the compound, and gunfire was heard inside. Safety concerns prevented firefighters from entering Mount Carmel immediately, and the flames spread quickly and engulfed the property.

Though nine Davidians were able to escape, investigators later found 76 bodies inside the compound, including 25 children. Some of them, including [David] Koresh, had fatal gunshot wounds, suggesting suicide or murder-suicide.”

According to a must-read article at lawofficer.com, “Chipman’s Twitter account is now private and in recent days, he deleted more than 1000 tweets.” Chipman is “senior policy adviser” to former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords’ gun grabbing organization.

Source

Citing founding father George Mason‘s quote: “To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them,” Boebert said in part that “Democrats & their allies seek to enslave and control the people of the United States and every aspect of their lives.”

source

RAIR Foundation USA’s Amy Mek is also a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. Last month Mek Tweeted “Nazi Germany established gun control in 1938 & from 1939 to 1945, Millions of Jews & others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up & exterminated”, she said. “I refuse to be a victim!”, she continued.

Donate to Boebert here.

__________________________________________________

SEE ALSO: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/04/david-chipman-lifetime-anti-gun-activism/

EXCERPTS: 

In 2019, he told the House Judiciary Committee that the American firearms market was “flooded” with foreign-made ARs.

This claim is far from true.

With a few exceptions – very few—most ARs are manufactured in the United States.

 

New Bill in Congress Essentially Nullifies the Second Amendment

BY SELWYN DUKE

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/new-bill-in-congress-essentially-nullifies-the-second-amendment/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Leftists have made clear that they believe only the government should have guns, and a new bill proposed in Congress would be a huge step toward making this a reality.

Submitted January 4 by Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), the Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act (H.R. 127) would, one observer warns, “end your 2nd Amendment rights permanently.”

The bill’s provisions are staggering, in fact, according to analysts who’ve tried to make sense of its technical language.

“First, HR 127 establishes a federal firearms registration system that will be accessible by federal, state, and local governments, including the military — even the GENERAL PUBLIC!” relates writer Howie Katz.

“The system will track the make, model, and serial number of all firearms, their owners, the dates they were acquired, and where they are being stored.”

Note that when The Journal News in Westchester County, New York, printed the names and addresses of registered handgun owners in its coverage area in 2013, it caused an uproar. And one point made at the time also applies to a universally accessible registration system: If someone wanted to rob you, he could know precisely how you were armed or if you were unarmed — and hence easy prey.

In fact, in that incident’s wake, the Rockland County Times “asked several former convicts what they thought about the publication of registration information,” related America’s 1st Freedom in 2016. “The convicts all agreed that it would be an outstanding list for burglars to use.”Moreover, making such records public can render you vulnerable to cancel-culture action in today’s political climate.

Worse still, H.R. 127 is retroactivestates author and blogger Michael Snyder. “Within three months, you would have to report to the government where you bought all of your guns, when they were purchased, and where they are currently being stored,” he writes.

Firearm owners “would also have to report the identity of any person to whom, and any period of time during which, the firearm will be loaned to that individual,” adds Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms chairman Alan Gottlieb.

Of course, this makes it easy for the government to confiscate your weapons in the future. In fact, as in Australia, the historical pattern is for registration to precede confiscation.  

Yet selective “confiscation” could occur long before the collective variety because H.R. 127 also requires licensing, inclusive of a psychological evaluation.  

“The licensing requirement mandates that the license applicant undergoes a criminal background check, and then submits to a psychological evaluation to determine whether the person is psychologically unsuited to possess a firearm,” as Gottlieb puts it. “Successful licensees must show they have an insurance policy which will cost $800.”

By the way, if a poll tax is illegal because it places an undue burden on the poor, why should what’s in essence a gun “tax” be allowed, especially since at issue is a constitutionally guaranteed right?

While Snyder points out that many guys wouldn’t want a government-approved psychologist assessing their mental fitness, more must be said. The reality is that the social sciences in general are a bastion of liberalism.

As Quartz wrote in a 2015 article titled “Social psychologists are almost all liberals — and it’s really hurting the field,” “In 2011, Professor Jonathan Haidt, of New York University’s Stern School of Business, asked a gathering of some 1,000 psychologists to raise their hands if they identified as politically conservative. Exactly three people did.”

Thus is it unsurprising that the social sciences have become what they are: the (pseudo)scientific arm of leftism. That is to say, liberals in politics make a claim, and social scientists provide a specious “scientific” basis for it.

Moreover, we’ve for years heard that conservatives are mentally ill. This columnist states that “Trumpism Qualifies as Psychosis,” for example, and Psychology Today has claimed that trump supporters generally have “5 key” negative traits and that they exhibit distortion of reality.

So what do you think the chances are that deviation from approved orthodoxy would be used, social-credit-score style, to deny gun licensing?

Yet there’s still more. According to Katz, “For the psychological evaluation, a licensed psychologist will interview individuals’ spouses and at least two other family members or associates to ‘further determine the state of the mental, emotional, and relational stability of the individual in relation to firearms. Licenses will be denied to individuals hospitalized for issues such as depressive episodes; no duration for license disability is specified, and it does not matter whether the individual sought help voluntarily.”

“Finally, HR 127 also criminalizes the possession of ‘large-capacity magazines’ (those carrying greater than 10 rounds) and ‘ammunition that is 0.50 caliber or greater,’” Katz also writes.

“There is no grandfathering clause in Jackson Lee’s bill,” he continues. “That means if you have an old rusting .22 rifle sitting in … one of your closets, you will have to comply with all the provisions of the bill or face a heavy fine and possible imprisonment.”

The good news is that H.R. 127 does not as yet have any co-sponsors. The bad news is that it absolutely aligns with Democrats’ aims. So we should expect something of its nature to pass the House in the foreseeable future.

As Snyder points out, all of this is happening at precisely the time crime rates are skyrocketing because of many Democrats’ refusal to enforce just laws and their releasing of criminals onto the streets. So it’s not enough for the leftists to throw a cat to the wolves — they want to declaw him as well.

Of course, all this means far more if we confuse the feds with feudal lords and government with God. These proposals don’t mean as much if we on the state level just say to the feds, “If you can nullify constitutional amendments, we can nullify you.”

THE CHARLIE KIRK SHOW: STUDENT AUSTIN TONG BANNED FROM FORDHAM UNIVERSITY, FIGHTS BACK TO SECURE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

After posting a picture holding a legally owned firearm to commemorate the 31st anniversary of Tiananmen Square, Fordham University proceeded to harass and eventually ban senior and Chinese immigrant, Austin Tong from campus, all for merely exercising his First Amendment right. This is his heroic story of fighting back against a very CCP-style tyranny present on American shores.

NYC CATHOLIC JESUIT FORDHAM UNIVERSITY THREATENS STUDENT WITH BAN FROM CAMPUS, EXPULSION FOR POSTING PICTURES OF HIS LEGALLY ACQUIRED AR-15 RIFLE~STUDENT WILL SUE Fordham University: Student Charged With Hate Crime for Posing With Gun

Fordham's Austin Tong: NRA-ILA-This is What Keeps America Free

BY NRAHQ

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2020/07/this-what-keeps-america-free/#axzz6TUWMkFMo;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- In response to a public expression of lawful political speech, “safety officers” 
come to the person’s home at midnight to interrogate him. He is accused of intimidation, making 
threats, hate crimes, and disorderly conduct. He is found guilty and his punishment includes exclusion 
from the community, suspension of his academic privileges, a ban on taking leadership roles in campus
 organizations, mandatory meetings with appropriate officials to learn about correct ways of thinking 
and speaking, and the presentation of a formal written apology, to be submitted in draft form “for 
approval.”

Readers would be excused for assuming that this occurred in some backward, repressive dictatorship or totalitarian regime, but these troubling events took place at an American University.

Austin Tong, a senior at Fordham University in New York State, posted two messages on his Instagram account. The first, on June 3, was a comment about the “nonchalant societal reaction” to the killing of David Dorn, a black, retired St. Louis Police officer. His second post, a day later, was a photo of himself holding his lawfully owned AR-15 rifle at his off-campus home. This was captioned, “Don’t tread on me,” followed by the emojis of the American and Communist Chinese flags and a hashtag “commonly used by Chinese citizens to avoid censorship of online discussion of the Tiananmen Square massacre.”

Mr. Tong is a Chinese-American who arrived in the United States as a six-year-old immigrant. He explained that his second post was made to commemorate the 31st anniversary of the suppressed 1989 Chinese Democracy Movement.

According to Mr. Tong, the university “sent safety officers at midnight to interrogate me all over a simple picture of a lawfully owned gun.”

Keith Eldredge, Fordham University’s Dean of Students and Assistant Vice President, followed up by advising that he was initiating an investigation for bias/hate crimes, threats/intimidation, and disorderly conduct, based on these “posts on social media related to the current racial issues in the country and political issues in China, including one in which you were holding an automatic weapon.”

Fordham University – a private educational institution that is not bound by the First Amendment – nonetheless professes its commitment to free speech and expressive rights. For example, its mission statement “guarantees the freedom of inquiry required by rigorous thinking and the quest for truth.”

The university’s Demonstration Policy opens with the following: “By its very nature, the University is a place where ideas and opinions are formulated and exchanged. Each member of the University has a right to freely express their positions and to work for their acceptance whether they assent to or dissent from existing situations in the University or society.” Similarly, Fordham’s policy on “Bias-Related Incidents and/or Hate Crimes” claims the University:

Values freedom of expression and the open exchange of ideas. The expression of controversial ideas and differing views is a vital part of University discourse. Although the expression of an idea or point of view may be offensive or inflammatory to others, it may not constitute a hate crime or bias-related incident. While this value of openness protects the expression of controversial ideas, it does not protect or condone harassment or expressions of bias or hate aimed at individuals or groups that violate the Student Code of Conduct. 

Regardless of these high-minded affirmations, the University concluded that Mr. Tong’s posts – devoid of threats, violence, intimidation, coercion, or harassment – violated the university rules on “Bias and/or Hate Crimes” and “Threats/Intimidation.”

A July 14 2020 letter from Keith Eldredge (copied to the “Department of Public Safety”) outlined the sanctions. Mr. Tong would be barred from the campus for the duration of his degree program. He was banned from representing the university or running for any student office or position. He would be required to attend instruction and complete activities on “implicit bias,” including a meeting with staff of the “multicultural affairs” office. He would have to submit a mandatory “apology letter,” to be approved by the university and a failure to comply would result in the university suspending or expelling him.

Perversely, the social media backlash to these innocuous posts has itself resulted in threats, intimidation, and potential bias/hate crimes against Austin Tong. It will be interesting to see whether Fordham University will enforce the same rules and policies against the activists from the university that “flooded the comments section” of his posts.

In the same way that the “quest for truth” supported characterizing his firearm indiscriminately as an “automatic weapon,” the university’s commitments to “freedom of expression and the open exchange of ideas” protected Austin Tong, who was “forcibly silenced, faced verbal and assaulting harassment from mobs, and subjected to Soviet-style interrogation and punishment.” Despite this, and the possibility that his academic career will be marred indefinitely due to these disciplinary actions, he has been steadfast in his defense of his constitutional rights.

In a video for the NRA, Austin Tong describes his decision to purchase a gun, adding that “[h]ere in America, we have our right to keep and bear arms. This is what keeps America free.”

Actually, Austin, it is patriots like you – who fight to protect our constitutional freedoms – that keep America free.


National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)

About NRA-ILA:

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org


Student Charged With Hate Crime for Posing With Gun

#AustinTong #SecondAmendment #DavidDorn #FreeSpeech #CancelCulture Student Austin Tong plans to sue Fordham University for suspending him over two Instagram posts. The first was a picture of retired St. Louis Police Captain David Dorn, a black man who was killed during riots over the death of George Floyd while responding to an alarm at a pawn shop. Tong wrote, 'Y'all are hypocrites,' in reference to how little media attention Dorn's death received. The second post shows Tong holding a rifle with the caption "Don't tread on me" and the date of the Tiananmen Square massacre, June 4, 1989, when thousands of mostly young student pro-democracy protestors were arrested or gunned down by the Chinese government in Beijing. Tong, who was born in China and whose family immigrated to the United States when he was 6 years old, explained in a comment that the date has significance for his family and many others with Chinese roots as an important day for democracy, and that he is glad to live in the United States where the right to bear arms is protected. Both posts received backlash from students, who tagged the University and demanded action. Tong says soon after, Fordham University Dean of Students Keith Eldredge notified him that he was in violation of the school's code of conduct “relating to bias and/or hate crimes” and for “threats/intimidation”. According to Tong, Eldredge said, "Your intentions may not be harmful but your impact was harmful." Tong is now suspended, must submit an apology to the University, and undergo diversity training by the end of July. TIME STAMPS: 1:00 Austin explains his posts 5:00 University officials show up at Austin's house to question him 11:00 Austin responds to backlash 6:40 Dean of Students calls Austin and explains conduct violations he will face 17:00 Austin says school shootings were never mentioned as a reason to discipline him for his post 19:25 Austin explains his plan 26:00 How cancel culture polarizes people

Austin Tong, a 21-year-old rising senior at Fordham University, has filed a lawsuit against the school after he was penalized over two social media posts

BY NRAHQ

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2020/07/student-charged-hate-crime-posing-gun/#axzz6TDJgNfYg;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Austin Tong was an average college kid working on his degree from Fordham 
University in New York City when, last week, he posted a couple of pictures on Instagram that made 
him the target of an irrational Internet mob and a scurrilous university investigation. The pictures 
he posted – which nearly got him kicked out of school – were of a retired police captain who was 
recently killed by looters, and one of him holding an AR-15.

His posts prompted a hateful reaction from intolerant “keyboard warriors” who despise the police and the Second Amendment. Fordham University officials then opened an investigation and charged him with intimidation, making threats, disorderly conduct, and a hate crime – all for posting a picture of himself with a lawfully purchased and owned firearm and one of a slain police officer.  Now he has been banned from campus, asked to write a letter of apology, and told he must complete implicit bias and multicultural sensitivity training in order to graduate with his degree.

Today is the deadline for Austin to make his decision. He plans on saying no. And, if the university wants to kick him out, he says they’re going to have a legal fight on their hands.

Stories similar to Mr. Tong’s are happening all over America. The NRA will stand and fight for every citizen’s rights. Please consider joining or donating today to support Mr. Tong, and the NRA cause.

Here are five quick questions and answers from new NRA member Austin Tong.

You were born in China and immigrated to the United States. How did that happen? 

America is the land of opportunity and I think everyone around the world knows that. My parents, who came first, wanted to make a better life for themselves and their family. They knew America was a free country and people come here because of everything the country has to offer. That’s why we moved to New York.

Have you always been interested in firearms? 

I’ve always had an interest, mostly thanks to video games, but I never really thought about buying one before. But after recent events I thought it would be a good way to keep me and my family safe.

I’ll admit I wasn’t always a believer, but as time went on, I began to appreciate the rights we have as Americans more and more. And that’s how I got into trouble – because I expressed that appreciation.

What was it like to receive a midnight visit from the Fordham Safety Officers?

Well, I posted the pictures, received the backlash, and a few hours later received a call from the officers saying they were a few minutes away and wanted to talk. I looked out my door and saw them standing outside my home. One came in and one stayed with the car. It was basically about 20 minutes of questions about the firearm, why I posted the pictures, and what I was trying to say.

I’m a good guy, a good person, so while I was a little shook by the visit I knew I’d done nothing wrong. I knew people would probably criticize the post, but I wasn’t expecting the level of backlash, the death threats, the calls for expulsion, or that the entire school would get involved. I was shocked, appalled, and disappointed. But I didn’t do anything wrong and that’s why, if they carry through with their threats, we’re going to sue.

We’ve read about the horrible comments you received, including the death threats, but have all the reactions been negative? 

No, not at all. There were a ton of nasty comments after the initial post but once the word really got out, where the NRA really helped a lot, I started hearing from the media, other Instagramers, and people from the firearm community.

That’s why I’m doing this. At first this was my case by now I think of it as the country’s. I don’t know what’s going to happen when I don’t comply with Fordham’s demands. I don’t’ know what’s going to happen to my future but after receiving all those messages from people around the country and around the world – people from all backgrounds and political parties – I knew I had to do more. They were telling me their stories, similar stories, how they were silenced or too scared to share their stories. That should never happen – not here in America.

That’s why I’m doing this. That’s why I’m standing up. When there’s no free speech then America isn’t America anymore. That’s what drives me. It’s empowering what the NRA did, what people across the country have done, and I think we’ll have a great case for protecting free speech.

Did the reaction from Fordham officials surprise you? 

It did because the guy who charged me, the dean of students, he knows me. And the safety officers said I wasn’t a threat or being intimidating. They said there’s nothing wrong with me yet they’re still trying to kick me out of school.

I’m shocked and surprised because they know me. They know who I am. And I expected more from this esteemed university.


National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)

About NRA-ILA:

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Chinese immigrant student, 21, sues Fordham University after he was banned from campus over 'Don't tread on me' post in which he held an AR-15 to commemorate anniversary of Tienanmen Square

  • Austin Tong, 21, filed a lawsuit against Fordham Univsersity after they penalized him over two social media posts
  • One showed a picture of David Dorn, the 77-year-old retired officer who was shot dead during by a looter after protests in St. Louis, Missouri
  • The other was a photo of Tong holding a rifle to commemorate the 31st anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre
  • Fordham University determined Tong had violated school policies with bias and hate crimes that were classified as 'Threats/Intimidation'
  • Tong, a Chinese immigrant and Black Lives Matter supporter, wrote that both posts were made 'love for this country'
  • School officials enacted several penalties, including a ban from campus, school office and possible expulsion if Tong violates probation 
  • BY LAUREN EDMONDS